Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T15:50:56.619Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Interference of Unicorn-Plant (Proboscidea louisianica) with Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Kay L. Mercer ,
Don S. Murray  and
Laval M. Verhalen
Kay L. Mercer
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Oklahoma State Univ., Stillwater, OK 74078
Don S. Murray
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Oklahoma State Univ., Stillwater, OK 74078
Laval M. Verhalen
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Oklahoma State Univ., Stillwater, OK 74078
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Full-season interference from unicorn-plant [Proboscidea louisianica (Mill.) Thell. # PROLO] at densities ranging from 0 to 32 weeds/10 m row was measured on weed and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L. ‘Westburn M′) parameters in three Oklahoma environments. Linear regression models using log10 transformations were superior to linear and comparable to quadratic models in estimating the impact of inter- and intraspecific competition. Weed measurements on an individual plant basis were not reliable indicators of interference. Weed dry biomass, ground cover, and seed capsule production/plot generally increased with increasing weed densities. In the three environments, densities of two, four, and eight weeds/10 m row initially reduced cotton plant height. Maximum height reductions averaged 20, 28, and 43% in the three environments but did not detrimentally affect the mechanical harvest of cotton. As unicorn-plant density (expressed in log10 units) doubled (within a range of 1 to 32 plants/10 m of row), lint yield reductions ranged from 84 to 146 kg/ha. Maximum lint yield losses averaged 59, 65, and 74% in the three environments. Transforming lint yield/plot to a percentage of that from weed-free plots resulted in a single quadratic equation applicable over environments. Unicorn-plant at the highest weed density reduced fiber fineness, uniformity, and length, but not fiber strength.

Keywords

Competitioncotton fiber propertiesdevilsclawPROLO
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 35 , Issue 6 , November 1987 , pp. 807 - 812
Copyright
Copyright © 1987 by the Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Black, C. C., Chen, T. M., and Brown, R. H. 1969. Biochemical basis for plant competition. Weed Sci. 17:338–344.Google Scholar
2. Black, J. N. 1960. The significance of petiole length, leaf area, and light interception in competition between strains of subterranean clover (Trifolium subterraneum L.) grown in swards. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 11:277–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Buchanan, G. A. and Burns, E. R. 1970. Influence of weed competition on cotton. Weed Sci. 18:149–154.Google Scholar
4. Buchanan, G. A. and Burns, E. R. 1971. Weed competition in cotton. I. Sicklepod and tall morningglory. Weed Sci. 19:576–579.Google Scholar
5. Buchanan, G. A. and Burns, E. R. 1971. Weed competition in cotton. II. Cocklebur and redroot pigweed. Weed Sci. 19:580–582.Google Scholar
6. Buchanan, G. A., Crowley, R. H., and McLaughlin, R. D. 1977. Competition of prickly sida with cotton. Weed Sci. 25:106–110.Google Scholar
7. Buchanan, G. A., Crowley, R. H., Street, J. E., and McGuire, J. A. 1980. Competition of sicklepod (Cassia obtusifolia) and redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus) with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 28:258–262.Google Scholar
8. Chandler, J. M. 1977. Competition of spurred anoda, velvetleaf, prickly sida, and venice mallow in cotton. Weed Sci. 25:151–158.Google Scholar
9. Clements, F. E., Weaver, J. E., and Hanson, H. C. 1929. Plant competition — an analysis of community functions. Publ. No. 398. Carnegie Inst., Washington, DC. 340 pp.Google Scholar
10. Correll, D. S. and Johnston, M. C. 1970. Manual of the vascular plants of Texas. Texas Res. Found., Renner. 1881 pp.Google Scholar
11. Crowley, R. H. and Buchanan, G. A. 1978. Competition of four morningglory (Ipomoea spp.) species with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). Weed Sci. 26:484–488.Google Scholar
12. Donald, C. M. 1958. The interaction of competition for light and for nutrients. Aust. J. Agric. Res. 9:421–435.Google Scholar
13. Martin, W. C. and Hutchins, C. R. 1980. A flora of New Mexico. Vol. 2. J. Cramer, Vaduz, Germany. Pages 1856–1859.Google Scholar
14. Patterson, D. T. 1982. Effects of shading and temperature on showy crotalaria (Crotalaria spectabilis). Weed Sci. 30:692–697.Google Scholar
15. Rushing, D. W., Murray, D. S., and Verhalen, L. M. 1985. Weed interference with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). I. Buffalobur (Solanum rostratum). Weed Sci. 33:810–814.Google Scholar
16. Rushing, D. W., Murray, D. S., and Verhalen, L. M. 1985. Weed interference with cotton (Gossypium hirsutum). II. Tumble pigweed (Amaranthus albus). Weed Sci. 33:815–818.CrossRefGoogle Scholar